|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually one of my rifles has both a grenade launcher and a bayonet and under US law I must leave both on the weapon. It has a 10 round magazine and is semi-automatic.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 365 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined:
|
Crash writes: So if the vast majority of gun owners already follow this practice, what's the point in legislating it? Under what regime do you anticipate creating the first law that would be followed with 100% compliance? I never stated that the vast majority of individuals do follow this practice. I was only speaking of those individuals that I know. And in fact it is only most that I know. I actually do have a couple of friends that do not own any gun safe, but own multiple rifles, handguns, and shotguns. Not expecting 100% compliance, but with the requirement to own a gun safe, the owner of the gun could be prosecuted for a crime committed using his or her gun without his or her knowledge because the gun should have been properly stored. ABE - I am just kind of annoyed with the fact that we keep coming to the same points with the two groups, gun owners and non-gun owners. We hear, "Ban all Guns", "Ban Assault Rifles", "Guns save lives", "Right to Bear Arms"...etc ad nauseum. No one is attempting to find legislation that can meet somewhere in the middle. We have all the right wing people saying Obama is going to take my guns away, well wouldn't this plan shut them up? He isn't going to take them away, just ask you to be responsible in your ownership or you can and will be held liable. Likewise, for those who are against gun ownership, we can state that not only will more individuals properly store weapons, but those who do not can face prosecution. It just seem like we have to stop looking at the extreme and start finding a way to work together or there will be zero progress anyway. Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given. Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : Forgot the words "his or"The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes, I did not think of this negative aspect...However, an individual could remove a handgun at night to ensure the it is more accessible in case of break-in, locking it back up when there is not a risk to members of the family in the household... Shiiit... I have enough trouble remembering to plug in my cellphone every night.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
So if the vast majority of gun owners already follow this practice, what's the point in legislating it? Under what regime do you anticipate creating the first law that would be followed with 100% compliance? The vast majority of people don't commit murder, so what's the point in legislating against it? Under what regime do you anticipate creating the first law that would be followed with 100% compliance? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
In Australia it did.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...n-control-work-in-australia quote: quote: "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Wow
A clip can also hold less rounds than a revolver.
Yes but I cannot get a bigger cylinder for a revolver can I.
Many bolt-action rifles are magazine-fed, for instance.
Have you seen a 30 round clip for a bolt action rifle?
A trained individual can cycle the bolt of such a rifle quite quickly.
You really have trouble with the obvious don't you. Yes a trained person can. Any idiot can pull a trigger 30 times in a row quickly. How fast can an ordinary someone cycle a bolt action?
Yes. They were testing a lightweight caliber aluminum survival rifle based on modular components attached to a central receiver, based on a rotating-bolt gas-actuated design. In other words, the exact design of the AR-15. Every M-16-type rifle is based on that design. That's the "DNA" of the rifle, in other words, and it inherits directly from the original survival rifle. Your logic is amazing. First of all I do not think you are correct. The survival rifle was originally designed before Eugene Stoner joined Armalite. Also, armalite did come out with lightweight caliber survival rifles of a completely different design, the AR-5 and AR-7 whicj Stomnner did have a hand in designing. The AR-10 is a completely different type of firearm from a survival rifle. If you ahve any evidence showing the original survival rifle was simialr to the AR-10 present it. The whole design of the AR-10 is counter to what a survival rifle should be.
In other words, the exact design of the AR-15.
Prove it don't assert.If you don't believe me maybe you should discuss it with Armalite. quote: Because you don't understand how guns work, you don't understand how they're designed. As a result, you don't know how to recognize how those designs developed. For instance, your completely inaccurate presentation of the history of the M-16/AR-15.
Yes I am quite familiar with workings and designs of firearms. I am also quite familiar with the history of them also. Also, I am quite capable of finding sources to back what I say. In other words read Armalites history of the AR-10.
Maybe you're just a bad shot. Why should I believe you about these figures?
Off a bench with a bipod for sighting in. You have no reason to believe. Just telling you my personal experience. Take it or leave it. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
No one is attempting to find legislation that can meet somewhere in the middle. Well, I am, which is why I'm basically arguing with everybody. I currently favor gun registration, ballistics fingerprinting of all weapons, magazine size limits, "bullet button" requirements on magazine-loading weapons, and possibly annual ammunition purchasing limits. I'm less convinced about the last one. A mass shooter usually only "needs" about a hundred rounds, and his mass shooting is usually the last time he ever fires a gun in his life (since he's usually caught, shot, or suicided.) But it doesn't sound unreasonable to me that someone like a competitive target shooter might expend hundreds of rounds in a year.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4
|
I currently favor gun registration, ballistics fingerprinting of all weapons, magazine size limits, "bullet button" requirements on magazine-loading weapons, and possibly annual ammunition purchasing limits. I think these are rational common sense things. I think these are doable and effective. The registration is the first and biggest hurdle.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The Clackamas, Oregon mall guy - whose mass shooting has largely disappeared from the news as a result of this latest one, and also because, having been stopped by the actions of a concealed-carry permit holder ... But that's not true, is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Catholic Scientist writes: "Destructive device" is a legal term. And it even comes in human flavors with hair triggers. Sorry I came across as being a jerk, but you seem to be missing the irony. You were asked why you don't have full-auto, and you didn't respond with comments about the serious responsibility involved but that you can't afford it and you'd "prolly be in my house and wouldn't want to wreck the place." You followed that with, "Unlike firearms, destructive devices are just too dangerous," and your blas attitude combined with the thought of a device that could wreck your house while not being destructive was just too ironic to pass by without comment. You followed your "destructive device" comment by exploding with "I don't give a fuck about the NRA," and sorry, I couldn't resist that either. Anyway, carry on with this dispassionate discussion about various weaponry in a thread begun in reaction to a mass murder. Lookin' good! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But at what cost?
Violent crimes per 100,000 individuals: US, Canada, Australia, and the US:
I mean, I'm all for gun control, but not at the cost of having the US spiral into lawlessness like Europe, like the UK, where home invasion robbery is "the new normal" that people accept is going to happen, it's a legitimate mode of employment, maybe you could be a mate and help the guy cart off your goods, but god forbid you be so impolite as to use anything approaching force to prevent him from helping himself to your possessions, your wife, and maybe your life. Edited by Admin, : Make image readable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The registration is the first and biggest hurdle. In what way? I ask because I live in Illinois and our gun laws are all fucked up so I don't really know about the rest of the country that much. But, I registered my gun when I bought it... I think. I mean, it got "transfered" to me in some paperwork I signed. For the lurkers who don't know how that works, it goes like this: My Glock has a unique number on it. If it was found, then the police would call up Glock and give them the number. Glock would say, 'we sold that gun to Bob's US Gun Distributor. Then the police would call Bob and he'd go: "We sold that to Joe's Gun Store near St. Louis." Then they'd call Joe and they do: "We sold that gun to Catholic Scientist back in '09". Then they'd call me and ask me if I knew where my gun was.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Anyway, carry on with this dispassionate discussion about various weaponry in a thread begun in reaction to a mass murder. Lookin' good! Message 96 Starting this thread looked bad in the first place.
Sorry I came across as being a jerk, but you seem to be missing the irony. You were asked why you don't have full-auto, and you didn't respond with comments about the serious responsibility involved but that you can't afford it and you'd "prolly be in my house and wouldn't want to wreck the place." You followed that with, "Unlike firearms, destructive devices are just too dangerous," and your blas attitude combined with the thought of a device that could wreck your house while not being destructive was just too ironic to pass by without comment. I'm still missing the irony... He asked why I wouldn't go for a full-auto for killing people. Then he asked why grenades shouldn't be at WalMart. I don't think full-autos should be at WalMart either. You're trying awefully hard to make me look stupid. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
But that's not true, is it? No, it is true. (You're not.. calling me a liar, are you?) The permit-holder drew down but didn't fire, and the shooter retreated in response and killed himself. I mean, that's almost a textbook-perfect case of how concealed-carry could abort a mass shooting scenario. Otherwise you're left with arguing for the possibility that a guy stole an AR-15, loaded up with hundreds of rounds, a side-arm, and a fully-loaded tactical load-bearing vest, bagged all of two people, and said "huh, I guess that's enough" and decided to eat one. That doesn't make any sense to me. Clearly, the Clackamas shooter killed himself when he encountered armed resistance. That the permit-holder didn't have to fire a shot to save lives proves, to me, that the notion of an armed hero stopping a mass shooting event isn't as risible in every circumstance as you've made it out to be in the past. It remains to be seen whether you'll adapt your position to new information; my guess is, the answer is "no."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Dr Adequate writes: But that's not true, is it? According to the "carrying concealed" guy, the mall shooter shot himself after seeing him pull his gun:
"As I was going down to pull I saw someone in the back of the charlotte move and I knew if I fired and missed I could hit them." Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision. "I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself." Article here: Clackamas man, armed, confronts mall shooter Never happens like it does in the movies, though, where the guy steps out from behind a support, points his weapon, and says, "Drop it." Crisis over, guy's a hero. But in the real world I guess a guy carrying concealed is enough to force perpetrators to commit suicide. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024